2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-24-2003 

# U S A v . J o seph P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1595

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . J os e p h " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 256. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/256NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

_________________ No: 03-1595

_________________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. ALTON EDWAR D JOS EPH, Appellant

________________________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt

for the D istrict of Delaw are Distri ct Judge: The Honorable Sue L. Robinson (D.C. Crimi nal No. 02-cr -00060)

______________________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit L. A.R. 34.1( a)

September 19, 2003 Be for e: M CK EE , SM ITH , Circuit Judges , SC HI LL ER *, Distri ct Judge (Opinion Fi led: September 24, 2003)

________________________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

_______________________

___________ * The Honorable Berle M. Schill er, United State s District J udge for the Eastern Dis tri ct of Pennsy lvania , si tti ng by des ignati on.2

SM ITH , Circuit

Judge
. I. INT RODUCTI ON Appellant

Alton Edward Joseph appea ls hi s sente nce for i nters tatetrans portation of ex pl os iv es wit

hou t ali ce ns e, ar gui ng t ha t t he Dis tric t C our

t e rr ed in as se ss in g t wo criminal his torypoints for his Massachusett s conviction on two counts of larc eny, and that t he Court shoul d not have i ncreased hi s offense l evel bytwo level s for stolen explosives, pu rsuant to U .S.S.G. § 2K 1.3(b)(2). II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HI STORY Joseph served as a suppl y cl erk for t he United States Army from 1975 to 1978, where he had access to a mil itar y pl asti c explosi ve, C-4. During thi s ti me, Joseph took from the Army f

ifte en one and a half pound bl ocks of C-4. He maint ained poss ession of fou rteen blo cks of C -4 a nd g ave his b roth er-in -law one blo ck in the 1 980 s. On July 15, 1 997 Josep h w as ch arged in M assac huse tts with two crimin al cou nts of larc eny over

$250 and larc eny byfalse pretenses , both unrelated to thematter now before u s. Joseph ad mitted to sufficien t facts for a find ing of gu ilt. The court, how ever, did not ac tuall y adj udicat e Joseph gui lty at that ti me. Instead, the court i mposed a probati onary period and resti tuti on in the amount of $53,225. 41. Jose ph was found to be
non -com pliant w ith his p roba tion req uirem ents in S eptem ber 1 997 . A su mm ons f or this probati on violat

ion was iss ued in June 1998. In early March 2001, Jos eph transp orted the rem aining fou rteen blocks o f C-43

fr om Mai ne to Del aware. In an a ttempt to avo idext

ra di ti on, Jos ephcon stru ct ed asc heme by w hich he a ttem pted to fa lsely im plica te a th ird p erso n fo r po sses sion of th e C -4. Josep h con tacted the B ureau of A lcoho l, Tob acco , and F irearm s (“A TF ”) in an attem pt to prov ide the m w ith info rmatio n abo ut the C -4, in ex chan ge fo r assistan ce w ith his Massa chus et ts extrad ition pro cee din gs. Upon di sco ver ing Jos eph’ s sc heme, the ATF ceased contact with Joseph and he w as extradited t o Ma ssachusetts. On August 9, 2001, Jos eph appeared i n Massachusett s pursuant to the warr ant for violatio n of prob ation. T he M assac huse tts cour t revok ed his prob ation, f oun d him guilty on both larceny c ounts, and sentenc ed him to two and a half y ears i ncarcer ation, one year to be s erved in cus tody, follo we d by 18 mo nths p roba tion. Pu rsuan t to Jose ph’s m otion to revis e his se ntence, the court reduced the sentenc e to one y ear on each count , to be served
con cur ren tly. With respec t to hi s possess ion and tr ansport ation of the C-4, pursuant

to a ple a agree men t, Josep h plea ded g uilty to Co unt III o f a thre e cou nt indic tmen t – intersta te tran spo rtatio n of exp losiv e m ateri als w itho ut a li cen ce in vio latio n of 18 U .S.C . § 842 (a)(3)(A ) and § 84 4(a). A s part o f the p lea ag reem ent, the g over nm ent ag reed to move to dismi ss the remaining count s of the i ndictment , which char ged Joseph with being a felon i n possessi on of explosi ves and posses sion of stolen expl osive mate rial s. The pl ea agree men t also pr ovid ed tha t the go vern men t wo uld n ot op pose a three poin t reduc tion in Joseph’s offense le vel for a cceptance of responsibili ty . Final ly , the government agr eed4

that U .S.S.G . § 2K 1.3(b )(3), w hich re lates to p osses sion o f exp losive m aterials in
conn ection with anoth er felo ny offe nse, w as inap plicab le, and that the gov ernm ent w ould not see k an upw ard dep artu re o n th at ba sis. The present ence report assi gned Joseph a bas e offense l evel of si xteen, because he was a “prohibi ted pers on” under U.S.S. G. § 2K1.3, speci fical ly a convicted felon, at the time h e pos sessed explo sive m aterial. T he pr esen tence repo rt also rec om men ded th at, pur su an t to U. S. S. G. § 2K 1. 3 ( b) (2 ), Jo se ph’ s o ff en se le ve l s hou ldbe in cr ea se d by two levels b ecau se the o ffen se inv olved explo sive m aterial tha t he kn ew or ha d reas on to believe w as stolen. Sub tracting three levels for a cceptanc e of respo nsibility, the report assigned Jo seph a total of fense leve l of fifteen. W ith respect to Josep h’s criminal history category, the presenten ce report assesse d two p oints for a M assachuse tts state court conviction f or two c ounts of larce ny, three points for a N ew H ampsh ire state court conviction for tampering with public or private records, and two additional points because the ins tant of

fense was committed less than two y ears fol lowing Joseph’ s rel ease from custodyfor the New Hampshire convi ction. Accordingly , Jose ph accrued se ven crimi nal historypoints, which placed him in criminal his tory category IV. Based on an offense level of fift een and a cri minal hi story category of I V, the appl icabl e guidel ines r ange was thirty to thirty-seve n m onth s imp risonm ent. T he D istrict Co urt sen tence d Jos eph to thirty
mo nths im prison men t. II. JURI SDI CTI ON5

Th e D istrict Co urt h ad s ubj ect m atter juris dicti on p ursu ant to 18 U .S.C . § 32 31. We exercise j urisdi ction pur suant t o 28 U.S.C. § 1291. III. STANDARD O F REVIEW We review the Dist

rict Court’s i nterpretation of the Sentenci ng Guideline s de
nov o. United Stat

es v. Amster , 193 F.3d 779 ( 3d Cir. 1999) . We reversethe Dist rict Co urt’s und erlying find ing s of fac t on ly wh ere th ey are clea rly erro neo us. United Stat es v. Cherry , 10 F .3d 1 003 , 100 9 (3 d C ir. 19 93)
. IV. DIS CUSSI ON Josep h raise s two issues o n app eal. First, h e asse rts that the Distric t Cou rt erred in
assess ing two cri minal hi story points for his Massachusett s conviction on two counts of larce ny. Second, Jos eph argues t hat theCourt shoul d not have i ncreased hi s offense l evel by two levels for st olen explosives, pursuant t o U.S.S.G. § 2K 1.3(b)(2). Because Josep h’s arg um ents lac k m erit, we will af firm th e judg men t of the Distric t Cou rt. With respec t to J oseph’s prior l arcenyconviction, de fense counselconceded that Josep h adm itted fac ts suff icient to e stablish guilt, bu t conte nded that, bec ause the state court initially did not make a f inding of g uilt, this process constituted a “d iversionary proceedi ng without a f

inding of gui lt” t

hat may not be a basi s for i nclusi on in a cri minal histo ry calc ulati on u nde r U .S.S .G. § 4K 1.1. The governm ent countered that, al though a diversion from the judicial process wit hou t a fin din g of gui lt w oul d no t be c oun ted u nde r the Sen tenc ing Gu ideli nes , a6

divers ionarydisposi tion resulting from a fi nding or admis sion of gui lt would be i ncluded in the c riminalhist ory calcul ation. The record r eflect s that on July25, 1998, J oseph was in violation of the term s of his prob ation. On A ugust 9, 20 01 the M assachuse tts court’s docket re flect s entry of a gui lty finding. Af ter hea ring ar gum ent on this issue at sente ncing , the D istrict Co urt stated that: I als o agree that al though if t he defendant had met

the requirements gi ven by the Court [for probation] this would have been a dive rsionary proceedi ng and he wou ld not have been g iven crimina l history points, the fact that there were findi ngs of guil t because he violated theconditi on of probati on, that again, the point s were appropriate ly awarded. App. at 38. We agree with the Distri ct Court t hat, pursuant

to the pl ain language of the Sentenci ng Guideline s, the Court properly include d Joseph’s state court c onvicti on in the calcul ation of

his criminalhist ory . U.S.S. G. § 4A1.2(k)( 1) provi des that “[i]n t he case of a prior revocation of probat

ion . . . [a]dd t

he origi nal te rm of impris onment to anyterm of impris onment imposed upon r evocati on. The resulting total i s used to c ompute the criminal history points for § 4 A1.1(a), (b), or (c), as ap plicable.” Thu s, Joseph’s Ma ssachusetts state larceny con victions, for w hich he serv ed one year in prison, were properl y i ncluded i n his criminalhist ory calcul ation. Joseph’s second conte ntion on appe al is that t he record c ontains insuffi cient evidence to support t

he District Court ’s concl usion that themili taryC-4 was “stol en” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2K 1.3(b)(2). Section § 2K1.3(b)(2) directs the court to increase the defendant ’s offenselevel by two points “i f the offens e involve d any expl osive7

materi al that the de fendant knew or had r eason to bel ieve was st olen. ” Joseph expl ained his poss ession of

the expl osives a s foll ows: in orde r to maint ain a const ant le vel of funding, e ach Army divi sion had t o use allof the suppl ies i t had on hand, or it s budget would be reduced i n the fol lowing y ear. J oseph maintains that his commanding officer told hi m to “get rid of” the C-4 in order to protect fundi ng level s, and J oseph interpreted that t o m ean that h e co uld take the C -4 w ith h im f or p erso nal u se. The Distri ct Court rejected this argument, finding [E]ven if Iaccepted de fendant’ s versi on of the fact s, Iagree with the government that with t

his ki nd of materi al [C-4], I don’t think t here is any evide nce, c redible evide nce, th at the d efen dant w as giv en pe rmissio n to keep this fo r his pe rsona l use. T here is no b ona f ide pe rsona l use fo r this sort of mate rial. The refor e, I believ e the n om encla ture, the chara cteristic “stol en” is an appropri ate one and t he upward adjustment [by the probat ion office] was appropri atel y gi ven. App. at 37. The Distri ct Court, then, rejec ted theveraci ty of Joseph’s explanation–that Joseph u nderstood that he w as entitled to possess C -4 for perso nal use–b ased on the very nature of C-4. Because t

here was no evide nce of a bona fidepersonaluse for C-4, the Distric t Cou rt did no t accep t Josep h’s co ntentio n that h e belie ved h e w as pe rmitted to retain C-4 fo r personal use . There w as nothing e rroneous in the District Cou rt’s conclusion. Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s increase of Joseph’s offense level by two levels for stolen explosives. V. CONCLUS ION For th e fore goin g reas ons, w e w ill affirm the jud gm ent of the D istrict Co urt.8 ______________________________________ TO THE C LERK: Please fi le theforegoing Opini on.

/s/ D. Brooks Smith Circuit Judge Date: Sept ember 24, 2003